As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Am I The Only One

To notice the incongruity in this ad, which starts out talking about "my husband, uncle, son," and ends with "Remember Building 7"?

What you two turds don't understand is that this isn't your blog. Pat has every right to ban the both of you if he so wishes it. All it takes is just one click and your asses are history. Stop hijacking the God damn threads with your idiotic obsessive bullshit.

The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation.----------Brian, the only blatant dishonesty is coming for you, not anyone else. Please grow the fuck up and move on with life.

Back on topic: Truthers have a way of manipulating what people say. It's their way of saying: "I'm an idiot and an asshole!"

Uhh, yeah. Because the important thing isn't the victims, but pointless questions about a building collapse that nobody cares about and even the conspiracy theorists can't explain how it fits into their theory, except for the fact that they desperately need it to.

Building 7 fell because it got hit by WTC1's collapse, which caused fires on multiple floors and also when both towers collasped they caused the lines for the fire hydrants to burst. Thus the firefighters couldn't do anything except watch it burn.

Truthers, like Pat Cowardly and especially Brian Good haven't figured out that WTC7 was only 400 feet from a 1,300 foot structure. Clearly both of them can't do the math

It's obvious that "Pat Cowardly" and "snug.bug" are the same person (ie., Brian "goat fucker" Good). Notice the time stamp on the posts:

Pat Cowardly--12:00

snug.but--12:08

And you'll also notice that "Pat Cowardly" didn't reappear until Brian "goat fucker" Good was threatened with a ban. If you'll do a simple IP address check on both "Pat Cowardly" and "snug.bug," I'm 99.9% certain that you'll find both have the same source IP address.

If nothing else, you should remove their post's on sight. In other words, you should enforce a "zero tolerance" policy against them. The never ending thread hijacking has gone on LONG ENOUGH.

"What you two turds don't understand is that this isn't your blog. Pat has every right to ban the both of you if he so wishes it. All it takes is just one click and your asses are history. Stop hijacking the God damn threads with your idiotic obsessive bullshit." -AfraidOfTheAnswers

Well building 7 kind of looks like a controlled demolition, and to people who don't know any better like truthers that equals a controlled demolition. To the informed and people who can think the comparison is silly. no one died in 7, 7 burned for hours and had this big gash in its one side. Stuff the average Joe would not know making them easier to sell tr1 snake oil.

Creationist do the same thing, they look for a wedge issue to sell to the public who done really understand the science. It use to be free-fall until debunkers proved they were wrong. The less you know about the facts of WTC7 the easier it is to make it look suspicious.

I have had people ask me about WTC7, and they often recite the conspiracy theorist talking points. "An airplane never hit it" When I educate them to the fact there were these huge fires with no water of firemen to fight them and the fact it was hit by something far bigger than a jet (WTC1) they say "Oh, I didn't know that" and accept the truth. Unless they have a conspiratorial agenda, then no amount of facts or logic can sway them from their truther religion.

Sounds like you can't respond to criticism of the NIST report either, boy.------------

Just by calling me "boy" sends a message about you. Are you a white supremist you racist prick?---------- Try to stay on topic, shitbag. This thread is about Pat's inability to understand the ad he linked to, and you're not helping him much.----------

What's there to understand? Oh I know what's to understand, it's people like you who love making a complete ass out of themselves and doing it on a blog so everyone can read your sad shit story of how 9/11 was an "Inside Job".

Brian "goat fucker" Good wrote, "...What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation."

What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation.

The incongruity is that nobody cares about WTC 7. Hell, nobody had ever heard of it until 9/11, when the media told us for hours about how it was in danger of imminent collapse. I suppose that was part of the plan, too: Dick Cheney wanted the media talking about WTC 7 so that failed janitors who wear women's underwear would babble about it for a decade afterward.

Well building 7 kind of looks like a controlled demolition, and to people who don't know any better like truthers that equals a controlled demolition.

Right, because all the cameras were focused on it from the north, which was the undamaged side. We don't have many shots from the south, because, well, because any journalist who would put himself just south of that building...let's just say that Tim Hetherington (RIP) would have nothing on that guy.

We do have a few aerial shots of WTC from the southwest, which shows billowing smoke rising from the south side of the building. It's funny how Brian never talks about that....

FWIW, I don't think Brian and Pat Cowardly are the same person. They both have very particular obsessions and ways of writing. Pat Cowardly is obsessed with Pat Curley and wants to have his babies. Brian is obsessed with Willie Rodriguez and wants to have Rodriguez' babies.

"What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation."

None of those people lost a loved one in WTC7, that's the incongruity. While sad, the fact that they lost loved ones on 9/11 doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about, nor does it justify wasting money on a new investigation that will only tell us what we already know.

If society starts catering to people with emotional or mental problems we're doomed.

Chief Hayden told of setting up transit in early afternoon - transit is positioned and locked on feature of the building such as a corner. In this case was bulge in building on SW corner. Periodic observations were taken - by 2:30PM could see building was creeping or moving out out plumb.

So you have a 47 story building which is on fire and when it starts to lean and forms a bulge, It doesn’t take a genus to figure the thing may fall.

I'm really shocked that the "pull it" argument is still used these days.

David Chandler forcing NIST to acknowledge 2.5 seconds of freefall collapse is new.

I think this is a great example of how desperate truthers can be to get information. What does 2.5 seconds of free fall do for you? What about the other seconds? How is that part consistent with controlled demolition? But a fraction of the collapse going down at free fall speed is supposed to be mind-blowing stuff? It doesn't mean anything.

The "flashes" argument is the same, when truthers try to counter the claim that a controlled demolition would have had flashes. So they pour over the video footage for light reflections and go "Look there! And there! See? Flashes!"

Anything that even remotely resembles evidence is used as an argument by you people. That's why you are incapable of being taken seriously.

David Chandler forcing NIST to acknowledge 2.5 seconds of freefall collapse is new.

I don't see how NIST was forced to do anything. It looked like a voluntary statement to me.

NIST removing the claim from their final report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" is new.

Are you really trying to suggest that NIST knowingly put forth a fraudulent report, but removed those four words because they didn't want to lie? You seem to lack the judgment of a mentally healthy adult.

Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Wow. Just....wow.

Paul w, sorry, I can do no more than bumper stickers under current posting rules. How about you play 20 questions?

My, such squealing!

Brian, you're not allowed under current rules to babble endlessly about Willie Rodriguez or the "widows". You are perfectly within your rights to tell us why you think the NIST report removing a few words is significant.

Also, you still haven't told us what you think made WTC 7 collapse, and why the conspirators wanted that building destroyed.

"Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics."

Nope.

First off there is no such thing as free-fall speed. There is terminal velocity. Second, the buldings collapse in no way violated Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics because it really doesn't apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

It has to do with energy and heat was it relates to a system. It also says matter cannot be destroyed. "The internal energy of a closed system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system" - that means that between the damage to the building combined with the raging fires put more strain on the supporting column than they could take.

You keep throwing around Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics like you know what you're talking about, but you leave out his second law which was written to fill in the hole of his first law by adding entropy. You ignore Newton's most important laws - gravitation:

Newton's 1st law of motion. A force causes a change in something's velocity (an acceleration).

In this case it was gravity itself that cause the building to fall as fast as it did.

Newton's third law of motion: for every action force ON an object, there is an equal but opposite force BY the object.

WTC7 is heavily damaged by tower collapse, fire rages inside for eight hours = This is (plus gravity) is the action force. The reaction? Building fall down go boom.

So once again you cite science that has nothing to do with the event ( in this case Netwon's 1st Law of Thermodynamics) and ignore the larger body of the same science that was used to correctly explain the collapses of all three buildings at the WTC complex.

I've already explained the 2.5 seconds of "free fall" (the real term is gravitational acceleration). Building 7 had a multi-story open atrium between floors 1 and 5. And I quote:

"...WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels." -- Dan Nigro

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

A glance at a schematic of building 7 proves the multi-story atrium comprised the entrance to the building (from the ground to the fifth floor).

Thus, the building fell through the atrium at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds as a result of the failure of the critical column, column 79A, and when that portion of the collapse was complete the building met plenty of resistance.

There's no mystery why the building experienced 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration. What we're witnessing here is the goat fucker and his number 1 propaganda technique: When his lies and propaganda are debunked, he slithers back into his basement and returns a few weeks later to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

Ian, my thoughts on the WTC7 collapse have nothing to do with whether it is incongruous that bereaved family members are concerned about Building 7.

So you're not going to tell us what you think happened, huh? I guess you're too scared of being laughed at again.

The rules as I understand them are that y'all are permitted to say any kind of ignorant and erroneous nonsense you want, and I am not permitted to respond.

Well, this would be yet another thing you don't understand, just like, well, everything else in life.

Brian, you're not allowed to post endless spam about Willie Rodriguez and "widows" and the like. You're supposed to post about the topic. Well, the topic here is WTC 7, so please, tell us why WTC 7 came down, and why the conspirators felt it necessary to destroy the building.

MGF, Newton's 1st law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics are two different things. Try again.

Brian, you're the one who hilariously posted this:

"Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics."

Remember?

The fact that you don't understand the first thing about physics goes a long way toward explaining why you're so confused about 9/11, and also why you lacked the basic intelligence necessary to be a successful janitor.

"...GutterBall, you should write to NIST with your theory that the building fell through the atrium."

What "theory", ass face? That building 7 had a five story tall atrium isn't a "theory," and I just supplied expert testimony from Dan Nigro to support the claim. There's no question that the building fell for five stories through nothing but air, so it should surprise no one--with the exception of an idiot--that building achieved gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds.

Ian, you are only pretending that I am wrong, and the fact that you missed MGF's ignorant conflation of the two first laws shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Free-fall collapse for any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous. The dishonest, incomplete, unscientific, and unbelievable nature of NIST's WTC7 report casts doubt on all of the other 9/11 investigations.

GutterBall, that the building had an atrium is a fact, and only you are mistaking it for a theory. Your theory that the building fell through the atrium, causing the freefall collapse, is entirely evidence-free, and contradicts NIST's theory.

So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA? You aren't getting the money from social security, and your mother doesn't live with you. So who pays your bills and buys your food, goat fucker? You sure as Hell aren't living off the "savings" of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear? Let me guess, the same group who pays "Cosmos," "Jon Gold," "Woolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

Ian, you are only pretending that I am wrong, and the fact that you missed MGF's ignorant conflation of the two first laws shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Free-fall collapse for any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Poor Brian, he's been exposed as an ignorant liar, and all he can do is post dumbspam like this and insist that he's right. That's why he's a failed janitor instead of the chair of the physics department at Stanford.

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous. The dishonest, incomplete, unscientific, and unbelievable nature of NIST's WTC7 report casts doubt on all of the other 9/11 investigations.

GutterBall, that the building had an atrium is a fact, and only you are mistaking it for a theory. Your theory that the building fell through the atrium, causing the freefall collapse, is entirely evidence-free, and contradicts NIST's theory.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian has been pwn3d again, and all he can do is post dumbspam. It's sad, really.

NIST acknowledged "2.5 second of gravitational acceleration," not "free fall"--you scurrilous liar. And NIST never explained the 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration (because the reason is obvious to anyone with an IQ in excess of room temperature, which always excludes the goat fucker).

Answer the question, goat fucker: So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA? You aren't getting the money from social security, and your mother doesn't live with you. So who pays your bills and buys your food, goat fucker? You sure as Hell aren't living off the "savings" of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. Let me guess, the same group who pays "Cosmos," "Jon Gold," "Woolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

You're as compromised as the day is long, goat fucker. So who pays you to spend 18 hours per day on-line, while you lie like a rug, goat fucker?

Gravitational acceleration is free fall. You seem to be dumb enough to think that if you are abusive enough while admitting that I was right and you were wrong, that nobody will notice that I was right and you were wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about. According to NIST's model the interior of the building already fell into the atrium several seconds before the freefall phase began.

What you're proposing is completely outside of the realm of NIST's theory, and it's one that NIST will never even consider because it implies engineering design defects.

Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't, you retard. What the fuck are you talking about?

First of all, if this was true. Free-fall would not be possible EVEN WITH controlled demolition. We'd be talking about something along the same lines as perpetual motion.

But to address your point, the 1st law of thermodynamics addresses conservation of energy. Energy can be manipulated and redirected, but it's quantity can not increase nor decrease. You are telling me that the fact that something can hit terminal velocity violates that principal?

If the internal structure broke down before the outside, then yes, it might indeed go free-fall momentarily. Once it catches up with more of the structure, however, there would be resistance, and it would slow down. This would explain why there are only 2.5 seconds of free fall speed. So far, I don't see the violation.

But returning to my earlier point, if free-fall speed violates the first law of thermodynamics, then it is impossible, and you must admit three things:

A) The measurement of 2.5 seconds at terminal velocity is an error of some sort and NIST was mistaken for admitting it's legitimacy in the first place.

(Not even getting into the discussion of whether or not NIST actually admitted this.)

B) That this has nothing to do with controlled demolition and is irrelevant to your cause anyway.

False. You're lying and misrepresenting the content of the NIST report. Why? Because there's no way that the failure of one column completely filled the atrium with debris. The building reached its 2.5 second of gravitational acceleration between t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds after the North wall began its decent. There's not one shred of evidence to support your lies, goat fucker.

Once again, we can see that you're misrepresenting your source.

Now stop the STONEWALLING and answer the question, goat fucker: So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA? You aren't getting the money from social security, and your mother doesn't live with you. So who pays your bills and buys your food, goat fucker? You sure as Hell aren't living off the "savings" of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. Let me guess, the same group who pays "Cosmos," "Jon Gold," "Woolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

So who pays you to spend 18 hours per day on-line, while you lie like a rug, goat fucker? Who puts food in your gullet, goat fucker

Arcterus, where do you get the idea that freefall is not permitted by controlled demolition? NIST said that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder said the same thing to NOVA.

Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance. This may be the case when 120,000 tons of debris are hammering on 30,000 tons of structure, but not until then.

How can you so confidently opine that the building "might indeed go freefall momentarily"? What is your authority for this?

Free-fall collapse is not impossible if the resistance has been removed by demolition.

Ian, again you are only making empty claims that I am wrong.

UtterFail, NIST claims that the failure of one column resulted in a chain reaction by which the entire interior of the building fell down, leaving the shell standing, which then fell in 6.5 seconds. Your time scale is all wet because it leaves out the collapse of the west penthouse.

My finances are none of your business. I will say that for many years I worked so much overtime that I never had any time to spend my money, and I then invested quite shrewdly if I do say so myself.

I understand the difference between speed and acceleration just fine. I said "freefall collapse".

My finances are none of your business. I will say that for many years I worked so much overtime that I never had any time to spend my money, and I then invested quite shrewdly if I do say so myself.

Please, Brian. We all know you are a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in modified attack baboons and magic thermite elves. Your idea of a shrewd investment is a 3-card Monty table. You need your parents to support you.

I understand the difference between speed and acceleration just fine.

No you don't. You just demonstrated that you don't understand this earlier in the post. Learn to read.

I will say that for many years I worked so much overtime that I never had any time to spend my money, and I then invested quite shrewdly if I do say so myself.

Sure, Brian. You got one of those super-lucrative hourly wage jobs. As opposed to these salaried or commission-based jobs that we lesser professionals have to take.

Then you worked enough overtime (to which you apparently had unlimited access) to retire in your early 50s on "investments", even though the Dow lost half its value in 18 months and hasn't recovered all of it yet. Oh, and you live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, when what you're talking about is the life of an ordinary educated, professional adult.

I could post alot about Brian's finances and prove again he is a liar, but it will derail the thread as he always wants to do. I will keep that for a future ocassion seem fit to expose the chicken shit, debate dodger, Bitch.

"Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance. This may be the case when 120,000 tons of debris are hammering on 30,000 tons of structure, but not until then."

Absolutly wrong.

Terminal velocity only exists in the presence of resistance, otherwise acceleration continues unopposed. In the usual meaning of the word, it is the speed at which air resistance equals gravitational acceleration. Other velocities are "terminal" when resistors other than air and/or accelerators other than gravity are involved.

"Arcterus, where do you get the idea that freefall is not permitted by controlled demolition? NIST said that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder said the same thing to NOVA."

Dr. Sunder makes the 'free-fall" referrence as he's talking about the Twin Towers, not WTC7. He uses the phrase because the interviewer uses it in his question.

Dr. Sunder also effectively explains why the buildings fell the way they did, a fact you always leave out.

Yet again you cite a source that undermines your theory - with facts no less.

"Gravitational acceleration is free fall."

Oh good lord. No, Brian, no it's not. Acceleration is acceleration. The terminal velocity of WTC7 would be in the thousands of miles per hour. Had any of the WTC building reached their terminal velocity they would have broken the sound barrier.

Ian, that your colleagues on this board fail to repudiate your continues empty and false declarations of victory contaminates them with your dishonesty.

JR, I thought we were referring to terminal velocity in terms of freefall with only air resistance. Since air resistance is negligible in this case, here it's a meaningless trope. Do you believe that it's appropriate to apply the principles of fluid mechanics to describe building debris falling through the undamaged lower part of the building?

MGF, the interviewer asked generally about the speed with which the buildings fell. It was Dr. Sunder who initiated the discussion of free fall. He volunteered: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

The fact that the buildings are mostly air does not exempt them from the laws of physics.

Free fall is an acceleration of 32 feet/sec/sec. You'd better take your Newtonian physics class over again 'cause you obviously didn't get it.

As to the velocity of WTC7, you'd better brush up on your falling bodies equations. Instantaneous velocity after a 600 foot fall would be 133 mph.

JR, I thought we were referring to terminal velocity in terms of freefall with only air resistance. Since air resistance is negligible in this case, here it's a meaningless trope. Do you believe that it's appropriate to apply the principles of fluid mechanics to describe building debris falling through the undamaged lower part of the building?

Brian, you should really release a video series explaining the laws of physics in the universe you live in. Certainly, you don't inhabit the same universe the rest of us do.

It was Dr. Sunder who initiated the discussion of free fall. He volunteered: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."

Stop lying, Brian.

The fact that the buildings are mostly air does not exempt them from the laws of physics.

Right, which is why you should learn something about those laws before you babble about them, unless your goal is to make us all laugh at your amazing ignorance and stupidity.

Free fall is an acceleration of 32 feet/sec/sec. You'd better take your Newtonian physics class over again 'cause you obviously didn't get it.

Nobody cares.

As to the velocity of WTC7, you'd better brush up on your falling bodies equations. Instantaneous velocity after a 600 foot fall would be 133 mph.

"JR, I thought we were referring to terminal velocity in terms of freefall with only air resistance. Since air resistance is negligible in this case, here it's a meaningless trope. Do you believe that it's appropriate to apply the principles of fluid mechanics to describe building debris falling through the undamaged lower part of the building?"

What part of that supports your absolutely ridiculous claim that "Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance"?

That is a statement that is completely the opposite of the physical reality of the phenomena of "terminal velocity". Terminal velocity only exists in the presence of resistance.

Your argument fails as soon as you make the assertion you did. The statement would have gotten you laughed out of a high school physics class.

I didn't introduce the "terminal velocity" phrase. MGF did, and Arcterus ignorantly picked up in it, and rather than indulge in pedantry about an irrelevance I went along with their vocabulary, since obviously what they meant by "terminal velocity" was free-fall acceleration in air.

In the context of a falling building, gravitational acceleration happens only in the absence of resistance. As I explained, MGF and Arcterus were obviously using "terminal velocity" to mean "gravitational acceleration". The error that so alarms you was theirs, not mine, and I went along with their vocabulary to avoid bogging the discussion down in obfuscatory nit-picking.

"Arcterus, where do you get the idea that freefall is not permitted by controlled demolition?"

Your words, not mine, dipshit. You're the one who said free-fall violates the first law of thermodynamics. That would make it IMPOSSIBLE. If you meant to say that it violates that law in this certain circumstance, you should have said that. It would still be retarded, but you should have said that anyway.

Arcterus, for someone as bright as you to pick up the rhetorical habits of this bunch of nit-wits here would be unfortunate.

NIST's claim that the buildings can come down "essentially in free fall" without demolition violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Demolition removes the structural resistance of the building to collapse, and then you approach free fall or, speaking loosely, "terminal velocity".

Air resistance in the case of a collapsing building is negligible. We're not talking about 200,000 tons of feathers here, OK?

I use terminal velocity because it is the correct expression for an object achieving maximum velocity as it falls through space powered only by gravity.

Free-Fall-Speed is mostly a troofer word that has no place in scientific debate. With Free-Fall Speed as used instead of terminal velocity troofers can sound authoritative as if they know what they're talking about. If you only use the phrase terminal velocity it introduces an problem from troofers because then the buildings didn't fall suspiciously fast, and in fact they fell about as fast as you'd expect damaged buildings with their construction to fall.

I understand this principle, I could be a Navy SEAL if I could make up my own rules for what it takes to be a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately if I want to be an actual Navy SEAL I have to...you know...join the Navy and go to selection and actually pass BUD/S.

Anyway, keep on trying, Brian, maybe they'll let you sit at the grown up table someday.

Creating a caricature of my argument and then attacking the straw man you created isn't proof of anything--with the exception of your boundless dishonesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In fact, you remain an idiot who doesn't know the difference between speed and acceleration. But don't get butt hurt, goat fucker, because ignorance and dishonesty is common among self-proclaimed 9/11 "truthers."

I'd do the calculation, but any answer would be based on speculation because I don't know the total mass of the building. In any case, terminal velocity for a falling object is achieved when net force on the object is zero (f^d - f^g = 0, where g = 0).

JR, the difference between freefall acceleration with air resistance and freefall acceleration without it in the context of a building collapse is of interest only to a pedant who is trying to obfuscate the ignorance both of the facts and of physics displayed by Arcterus and MGF.

I was simply using the phrase "terminal velocity" in the sense that MGF and Arcterus were using it (as a synonym for freefall), and was doing so only to avoid the meaningless quibble that you are trying make a mountain of.

You specifically claimed that terminal velocity could only occur when there is no resistance.

NO ONE else made that statement.

It isn't pedantry to point out that your claim is completely inaccurate and goes against all our understandings of physics at the most basic level. That is simply seeking to showcase the truth, as opposed to your delusions.

Of course now we see your typical claim when proven wrong, that you aren't wrong and even if you are it isn't relevant.

Brian doesn't understand that Thermodynamics (the transfer of heat into energy) has nothing to do with any of the collapses save the impact of the jets into the towers (then yes, thermodynamics plays a big part). He cites the 1st law, but doesn't understand that the second law was added to address the gaping hole of the first law, not that the second law has anything to do with the collapses either.

We have also learned that Brian can't read in such a way as to apply what he reads to anything important. He will cite reports that undermine whatever claim he is trying to support with his link.

Oh, and he has no proof of any kind other than his misinterpretation of video footage.

JR, all I did was fail to point out that MGF and Arcterus's invocation of "terminal velocity" as if it were a synonym of "freefall" was ignorant. I wished to avoid the kind of pedantry that infests this board and for the purpose of argument I adopted their terminology.

Ian, obviously we can't get the widows' questions answered because we're right.

Paul w, NIST's investigations are dishonest because they pretend evidence doesn't exist, they ignore essential issues and fail to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, they reverse-engineer their data points, and their perfunctory examination of the explosive/incendiary hypothesis was perfunctory and clearly aimed at a predetermined conclusion.

Their reports are unscientific for the reasons above.

MGF, your belief that the 1st law of thermodynamics is limited to heat and has nothing to do with work suggests to me that you never had freshman physics or you need to take it over. Heat doesn't transfer into energy--heat IS energy.

Pray tell, what "gaping hole" in the 1st law does the 2d law address?

The 2d law raises questions in terms of the extremely orderly nature of "collapses" that were allegedly incited by disorderly impacts and fires.

When challenged on any point, he will immediately run to Google and put together some response that sounds like Wikipedia threw up. Then when other people try to explain what he got wrong, he goes into his 'pearls before swine' act.

Brian's actually a good bullshit artist. His arguments sound convincing if you know nothing about the subject. But anyone with the tiniest depth of knowledge -- say, they read a book, or took an introductory college course -- can easily illustrate Brian's errors. As we have seen many times on this thread alone.

What makes Brian interesting in this regard is his relentlessness. He'll pretend to be an expert in absolutely everything: physics, avionics, metallurgy, music theory, mass media, military procedure, whatever the thread calls for.

Better liars than Brian know how to pick their spots, and know how to gracefully back off when they run into someone who can expose them.

"JR, all I did was fail to point out that MGF and Arcterus's invocation of "terminal velocity" as if it were a synonym of "freefall" was ignorant. I wished to avoid the kind of pedantry that infests this board and for the purpose of argument I adopted their terminology."

Please give the exact quote where anyone but you claimed that "terminal velocity", a phenomena absolutly dependant on the presence of some reisitance, can only exist in the absence of resistance.

No one but you made that absurd claim, and with your usual utter disregard for truth and honesty you try to spin away the evidence of your own error and instead blame it on anyone else.

Ian, obviously we can't get the widows' questions answered because we're right.

False. You can't get the widows questions answered because nobody cares about the widows or their questions.

MGF, your belief that the 1st law of thermodynamics is limited to heat and has nothing to do with work suggests to me that you never had freshman physics or you need to take it over. Heat doesn't transfer into energy--heat IS energy.

It's amazing to me that you're really dumb enough to keep at this Brian. If you're right about physics and everyone else is wrong, how come you're an unemployed janitor and not the chair of the physics department at Stanford?

JR, you are framing the issue dishonestly. Both MGF and Arcterus ignorantly used the term "terminal velocity" as a synonym for freefall in the context of building collapses, and rather than quibble about their faulty vocabulary I simply employed it for the sake of argument.

Since the difference between freefall and terminal velocity in the context of building collapses is not just trivial or negligible but infinitessimal, only the desperately pedantic would bring the point up at all. So I didn't.

TR, I'll take your post as an acknoweldgment that you can't refute any of my points, and so must resort to a generalized attack. I don't pretend to be an expert in anything except that I have studied the destruction of the World Trade Center more than most people in the world. I don't need to be an expert to point out the obvious dishonesty and incomplete and unbelievable nature of the NIST reports.

TR, I'll take your post as an acknoweldgment that you can't refute any of my points, and so must resort to a generalized attack.

Brian, you don't have any points. You posted a bunch of nonsense making it clear that you understand nothing of physics, and you've been trying to cover it up with dumbspam ever since.

I don't pretend to be an expert in anything except that I have studied the destruction of the World Trade Center more than most people in the world.

Brian, watching youtube videos over and over again while sniffing glue is not "studying".

I suppose you've looked into the destruction of the WTC more than, say, a Masai tribesman from Kenya, but since you've drawn all the wrong conclusions from what you've seen, said tribesman is, by default, better educated on the subject than you are.

JR, in the context of a building collapse the difference between terminal velocity and freefall is of interest only to a desperate pedant like yourself who is only mad at me because I have humiliated him so many times on this board, showing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

What I said, that something can reach freefall only when there is no resistance, was true. Have you calculated exactly how many picoseconds the effect of air resistance would impose on WTC collapse times? If not, then what are you quibbling about?

If you want to argue about truth why don't you ask Shyam Sunder why he told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" if it wasn't true.

I don't need to be an expert to point out the obvious dishonesty and incomplete and unbelievable nature of the NIST reports.

See what I mean?

Brian, do you care to present evidence of the dishonesty or how the NIST report is unbelievable? Can you tell us what you think brought down WTC 7 and why the conspirators did it? We keep asking but you won't answer these questions.

What I said, that something can reach freefall only when there is no resistance, was true.

False.

If you want to argue about truth why don't you ask Shyam Sunder why he told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" if it wasn't true.

He did no such thing, Brian. I don't think he'd appreciate you lying about him.

"What I said, that something can reach freefall only when there is no resistance, was true."

Liar.

That isn't what you said. You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference. You again show how little you care for actual truth or accuracy.

If you lying to yourself about who has proven who wrong on this site helps you sleep at night, go ahead. Anyone wishing to actually read the discussions can decide for themselves, and I'm happy to leave that in thier hands.

Oh that's rich, JR. Come on now, did you or did you not say "You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference." I said nothing of the sort. Are you going to strand by your statement or not? Don't lie about it, now.

Oh that's rich, JR. Come on now, did you or did you not say "You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference." I said nothing of the sort. Are you going to strand by your statement or not? Don't lie about it, now.

Brian, this dumbspam isn't going to get you a new investigation. Try making sense with your posts.

"Oh that's rich, JR. Come on now, did you or did you not say "You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference." I said nothing of the sort. Are you going to strand by your statement or not? Don't lie about it, now.

That is know as realizing you missed something during proofreading and correcting it when you see it. Notice that I didn't wait and hope no one spotted it, I didn't claim it was someone elses fault that I typed the wrong word, nor did I try to claim it was something other than an error on my part.

That is what an adult does. Admit the error and correct it without drama and lies. It's called honesty.

JR, I admitted that it was, technically, wrong to say "Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance." Since MGF and Arcterus introduced the term, and we were talking about building resistance at the time and not air resistance, I wished to avoid a pedantic and irrelevant distinction of which you wish to make a federal case. Kindly calculate the number of picoseconds you think that air resistance would add to the duration of collapse of a building.

TR, you have a long history of making empty claims. If I am wrong to believe that you can't refute my points, kindly refute them.

It is completely wrong. Regardless of the type of resistance, structural, air, or any other form, nothing has a terminal velocity unless there is some form of resistance.

It shows an utter lack of understanding of the concept. And the continued denials of that fact show an utter disregard for truth. As you demonstrate once again, it isn't the crime, or in this case the error, but the attempted cover up that actually exposes you.

I use "Terminal Velocity" because it is the correct term when discussing a falling object of any kind, you dipshit.

"Free-Fall" is a skydiving term, it describes a state of motion. It DOES NOT DESCRIBE SPEED. If we take our friend Newton's apple and drop it off a kitchen counter to the floor the physical act of the apple is free-fall, but free-fall has no other definition beyond describing the apple as it trasitions from the counter to the floor.

Troofers watch the towers and WTC7 fall with their stopwatches and shout "Free-Fall Speed!" as if it means something. It doesn't. What they should be doing is calculating the terminal velocity for each structure,then calculate how fast it took for the roof to hit the street, then estimate how fast buildings of that type to collapse. If there is a glaring gap in the estimated number and the speed of collapse then you've got something.

The problem is that none of the buildings fell any faster than they should have. The fell as fast as buildings with major structural damage should. In fact the towers lasted longer than they should have considering the damage, and WTC7 lasted 8 hours with massive damage and raging fires inside.

MGF, you only continue to sink into the quicksand deeper the more you try to explain. "Terminal velocity" is entirely inappropriate in discussion of building collapses, because it applies only to objects falling in air or other fluids. I thus complained that it applies only when the building offers no resistance.

Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute.

There is no need to calculate terminal velocity for the structures, because the influence of air is negligible. The 2.5 second segment of freefall collapse of WTC7 is contrary to the 1st law of thermodynamics unless the supporting structure was removed by explosives or incendiaries. The towers could be expected to approach freefall acceleration at some point when a large proportion of their structure was impinging on some smaller proportion, but for the entire collapse to approach freefall in the absence of removal of the the support is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

JR, I only used the terminology put in place by MGF and Arcterus to avoid obfuscatory pedantry, which seems to be all you have to offer the discussion.

"...Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute."

How many times must I explain this to you, cretin?

Essentially is a weasel word. It means the building didn't collapse at "free fall speed."

The South Tower collapsed in 14.25 seconds; the North Tower collapsed in excess of 22 seconds, which is nowhere near gravitational acceleration.

"Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute."

Yet again you cite Dr. Sunder to support your agrument but you ignore that in the same discussion he explains why the buildings fell as fast as they did. You then dispute his explaination.

Which is it Brian? If we listen to Dr. Sunder then we hear him say that the buildings were mostly air, and that's why they fell the way they did.

My favorite part of this is that you throw in the skydiver part. A skydiver falls at 200km/h, so the towers fell at that speed? Are you sure? You can actually check this sick theory by timing the jumpers, working out an average time to fall say 50 stories, then compare that time to the collapse speeds.

Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute.

No, you lie about him, since Dr. Sunder never said these things.

UtterFail, Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

So in the exalted opinion of GutterBall is 14 seconds "about" 9 seconds and is 22 seconds "about" 11 seconds? Is that good enough for you for the official reports that justified wars that killed over a million?

So MGF, do you believe Dr. Sunder's time frame of 9 seconds and 11 seconds? If so, don't GutterBall's estimates of 14 and 22 trouble you?

For you to invoke the speed of a skydiver's fall as if it had something to do with gravitational acceleration in a building collapse shows that you don't understand freshman physics. I very much doubt your claim that you're about to graduate from CSUMB with a science degree.\

JR, you are taking my statement out of context. I said freefall collapse was impossible if there was any structural resistance. I used the terminology that MGF had ignorantly set in place and left out the word "structural". The technical error was MGF's, was irrelevant, and has nothing to do with my position.

Ian, anybody who reads Dr. Sunder's statement can see that you lie. But you needn't fear, because nobody here will bother.

Brian just doesn't know when to quit, does he? No matter how many times you illustrate that he's wrong, he'll come right back with some new Google-inspired misunderstanding that he thinks proves him right. Then you try to correct him about that. Then he starts acting like you're the one with the problem. Rinse and repeat.

Boris Epstein was the same way. You just couldn't tell him he didn't know what he was talking about.

"...So in the exalted opinion of GutterBall is 14 seconds "about" 9 seconds and is 22 seconds "about" 11 seconds? Is that good enough for you for the official reports that justified wars that killed over a million?"

The stopwatch doesn't lie, goat fucker. And all the essentiallys and abouts won't lend the force of credibility to your argument.

Since all objects at sea level fall with an g (acceleration) of 9.81 m/sec^2, we can test the values given by the troof movement, NIST and Owens to see how "close" the Towers came to "free fall."

Assuming that the South Tower fell at "free fall", we can expect the following values:

h = 417m; t = 9.22 sec; g = 9.81 m/sec^2.

Assuming NIST's parameters, we can expect the following values:

h = 417m; t = 12.0 sec; g = 5.79 m/sec^2.

Assuming Owens' parameters, we can expect the following values:

h = 417m; t = 15 sec; g = 3.71 m/sec^2.

Thus, we can see that the collapse, when timed with a relatively accurate mechanism, e.g., a stopwatch, proves the Towers didn't collapse at a rate approaching gravitational acceleration. Unless, of course, you're so delusional and thoroughly dishonest that you're prepared to argue that 3.71 m/sec^2 approximates "free fall."

A little math will always bring the lie to the goat fuckers argument. Now, can we finally toss the goat fucker in the dust bin, where he belongs?

Until you clowns start calling out Ian for lying you can not possibly have any credibility. Dr. Sunder clearly says 9 seconds and 11 seconds, as my link shows. (Click on "transacript" button.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

As usual GutterBall bullshits instead of illuminates. How did that work out in your career, guy?You didn't answer the question. Is 14 seconds "about" 9 seconds and is 22 seconds "about" 11 seconds? Is that good enough for you for the official reports that justified wars that killed over a million?

Dr. Sunder didn't use the words exactly or precisely, he used the words essentially and about. As anyone with an IQ in excess of warm spit knows, the words essentially and about are used when a person doesn't have precise figures or estimates at hand. That Sunder used inexact terms doesn't "prove" that we need a "new investigation." On the contrary, all that's proven is your inability to think, and reliance on propaganda over reason.

As I, and others, have proven beyond a doubt, the Towers didn't collapse at anything approaching gravitational acceleration, and all the dishonesty and propaganda in the World won't convince anyone with an ounce of sense that a "new investigation" is necessary.

Furthermore, the NIST Report was never used to "[justify] wars that killed over a million." Again, you're lying and spreading readily verified nonsense. What else should we expect from a self-admitted propagandist? In fact, the wars were based on botched intelligence provided by the CIA, etc., not the NIST Report.

JR, in the context of the discussion I was clearly talking about structural resistance, the negligible air resistance being of interest only to an obfuscatory pedant like yourself.

So in GutterBall's world, is 11 seconds "about" 22 seconds? And is "essentially free fall" twice the freefall time? And is that degree of precision adequate for an investigation used to justify wars that killed a million people? And with that degree of uncertainty, how can we trust anything NIST says?

"JR, in the context of the discussion I was clearly talking about structural resistance, the negligible air resistance being of interest only to an obfuscatory pedant like yourself."

Bullshit.

Your words were exactly as I quoted them. They have very specific meanings you claim to know. Your use of them is directly opposed to that meaning. Therefore you didn't know or understand the meaning of the words.

That you continue to try to claim you said other than what you said adds to the proven fact you are ignorant of basic physics that you are a liar.

It isn't pedantry to insist that, in an argument about physics, the meanings of words and phrases being used are the definitions used by physicists.

Your constant sloppy use of words in technical arguments is the clearest repeated sign that you have no real knowledge about the things you are talking about.

JR, the ignorant use of terminology was MGF's and Arcterus's, and I simply went along with it to avoid obfuscatory pedantry. Are you arguing that air resistance should be considered when discussing building collapses?

Clearly in the context of discussion I was talking about structural resistance. Since there is no air resistance, there was nothing to say about that.

The facts are up the thread all right. MGF thinks Newton's 1st law and the 1st law of thermodynamics are the same thing, and introduces "terminal velocity" as a synonym for free fall, and you, vengeful because I have so many times made a fool of your ignorant nonsense in the past, are trying to make out like that's my fault.